Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[dosxuk]

With that level of support, even transferring the entire Reform vote to the Tories only gets them 110 seats on Electoral Calculus. It's bizarre that they seem to think attracting Reform voters is their route to success, especially when every step they take in that direction seems to put off just as many people as they gain.

The Tories missing out on even being the next official opposition would be a sight to see.

 

[telstarbox]

Interestingly if you run those numbers in EC but with Reform on 2% (which was the Brexit Party share in 2019) they still get battered - so the main factor is the size of the gap between Labour and Conservatives.

 

[ainsworth74]

With that level of support, even transferring the entire Reform vote to the Tories only gets them 110 seats on Electoral Calculus. It's bizarre that they seem to think attracting Reform voters is their route to success, especially when every step they take in that direction seems to put off just as many people as they gain.

It's one of the more fascinating things going on at the moment that the Tories are, to at least some extent, behaving as if they're already in opposition. Opposition parties often run to their comfort zone of their more ideologically extreme tendencies. Labour did it a little bit in 2010 but particularly after 2015 with Corbyn. The Tories did it in 1997 and particularly after 2001 as well. But you'll note that for both they did it once they were in opposition they didn't really go especially off the reservation before hand. They just looked tired and out of ideas by the ends of their terms (broadly speaking).

This time however the Tories appear to rushing off to their ideological comfort zone before they've lost the election which feels a bit different to previous instances of a long period in Government coming to an end. But does explain why they feel the need to pivot to the right even though it doesn't seem likely to help them actually win the election or even limit the damage that they may sustain in the next election.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's one of the more fascinating things going on at the moment that the Tories are, to at least some extent, behaving as if they're already in opposition. Opposition parties often run to their comfort zone of their more ideologically extreme tendencies. Labour did it a little bit in 2010 but particularly after 2015 with Corbyn. The Tories did it in 1997 and particularly after 2001 as well. But you'll note that for both they did it once they were in opposition they didn't really go especially off the reservation before hand. They just looked tired and out of ideas by the ends of their terms (broadly speaking).

This time however the Tories appear to rushing off to their ideological comfort zone before they've lost the election which feels a bit different to previous instances of a long period in Government coming to an end. But does explain why they feel the need to pivot to the right even though it doesn't seem likely to help them actually win the election or even limit the damage that they may sustain in the next election.

I guess there's more incentive to behave like an opposition party if you basically already know that you stand no chance of winning the next election, so you may as well be preparing for opposition anyway. I think that's the case now - basically, no-one thinks the Tories stand the slightest chance of winning this year. But in 1997 it seemed less certain: Sure, the opinion polls were showing an unprecedented landslide Labour victory coming up, but with memories of 1992 still fresh in everyone's heads, most politicians would have felt they had good reason to doubt that Labour really could pull it off. So I'd imagine that in early 1997, a good many Tory Ministers etc. were still half-expecting to still be in place after the upcoming election, giving them more incentive to plan and act as if they were going to be in Government for a good while yet.

Of course you could question just how much like a Government the Tory PLP was behaving anyway in the 1992-97 period with the constant splits and revolts over the EU and Maastricht

 

[Thirteen]

Paul Scully not standing at General election which means another MP is quitting politics. I wonder if it's due to him being dissatisfied with the job or jumping now before he lost his seat to the Lib Dems?

 

[Howardh]

Paul Scully not standing at General election which means another MP is quitting politics. I wonder if it's due to him being dissatisfied with the job or jumping now before he lost his seat to the Lib Dems?

Think the clever money is on the latter! watch plenty more go to avoid the "Portillo Moment"!

 

[jfollows]

But the good thing is whatever he does they are doomed. Think most put the NHS as their number one priority and want their taxes spent on that?

I've attached the charts from the IPSOS "political monitor" above (post 7,228), from https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...os-political-monitor-february-2024-charts.pdf.
Priorities are healthcare, inflation, economy, immigration, education, public services, foreign policy, climate, housing, taxation, inequality, politicians & crime, in that order from highest down.
Top issue for all is health, but immigration for Conservatives. Health figures less for younger votes, hardly surprisingly I guess, but the economy is high for all. And inflation/cost of living was never significant until 2024, again perhaps not surprising.

 

[Typhoon]

Paul Scully not standing at General election which means another MP is quitting politics. I wonder if it's due to him being dissatisfied with the job or jumping now before he lost his seat to the Lib Dems?

Didn't say anything about that when running for London Mayor. Age 56 by the forthcoming election, assuming the Conservatives don't win he is unlikely to be any more than a bit part player unless he runs for mayor again (and he wasn't even shortlisted). Might as well try and earn a few quid.

Ministers are considering proposals to ban MPs and councillors from engaging with groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.

The plans, put forward by the government’s adviser on political violence, John Woodcock, say mainstream political leaders should tell their representatives to employ a “zero-tolerance approach” to groups that use disruptive tactics or fail to stop “hate” on marches.

Hmm. That works both ways, for instance I assume that these mainstream political leaders will tell their reps to employ a 'zero tolerance approach' to those who were disruptive or took action against the expansion of ULEZ?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...31&cvid=1f013c7a8c354bca8a32186cf0f0e0c0&ei=9

 

[Gloster]

Hmm. That works both ways, for instance I assume that these mainstream political leaders will tell their reps to employ a 'zero tolerance approach' to those who were disruptive or took action against the expansion of ULEZ?

Or Welsh ‘farmers‘ blocking a road, like the Honourable Member for Richmond (Yorks)…whose name for the moment escapes me.

 

[brad465]

Or Welsh ‘farmers‘ blocking a road, like the Honourable Member for Richmond (Yorks)…whose name for the moment escapes me.

I hope someone locked up Neil Parish while that was going on

 

[dgl]

But they are not extremists, just the average working man fighting for their rights, well that'll be what the Conservatives claim and they never lie.

 

[david1212]

.... However if they want to sweeten the pill of their mis-rule over the last fourteen years, lowering NI isn't the way to go, as it only affects workers, they need to raise the income tax threshold, a lot, so that almost everyone benefits....

Exactly.

The previous 2p cut in NI makes no difference to the 'grey voters' with a additional pension over ~ £1000pa from April nor those who work a few hours (unless paid a silly rate e.g. consultant / advisor @ £100+/hr) and just £200-£250 to those working full time for minimum wage or slightly above.
Increasing the income tax threshold by £1500 would give every tax payer £300 while politically keeping the rise well below inflation, particularly the inflation of food and energy that has hit those who spend a higher proportion of their income on this hard.

 

[Gloster]

It is not what effect it has, but how it is portrayed. According to much of the media it will be the most generous and benevolent, but prudent, giveaway ever. If you don’t make some tax cuts, you can’t tell everybody how marvellous they are. You hope that enough people will be fooled until after they have voted and then…well, who cares?

 

[brad465]

So the Budget reporting seems to be a 2p cut in income tax rate along with delaying the end of the temporary 5p cut in fuel duty again. Funding it seems to be through cutting future public spending, targeted tax rises, and £7bn of "fiscal headroom":

Jeremy Hunt set to give motorists £5bn tax break in the Budget

Tory MPs also hoping UK chancellor will announce surprise 2p cut in basic rate of income tax

on.ft.com

Jeremy Hunt will on Wednesday give motorists a £5bn pre-election tax break in the Budget, as hopes rise among Tory MPs that the chancellor has mustered enough money to fund a surprise 2p income tax cut.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

But the good thing is whatever he does they are doomed. Think most put the NHS as their number one priority and want their taxes spent on that?

Yes but no sign of Labour committing to that either

 

[43096]

I've attached the charts from the IPSOS "political monitor" above (post 7,228), from https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...os-political-monitor-february-2024-charts.pdf.
Priorities are healthcare, inflation, economy, immigration, education, public services, foreign policy, climate, housing, taxation, inequality, politicians & crime, in that order from highest down.
Top issue for all is health, but immigration for Conservatives. Health figures less for younger votes, hardly surprisingly I guess, but the economy is high for all. And inflation/cost of living was never significant until 2024, again perhaps not surprising.

There's some interesting things in there.

Notably, Starmer isn't popular, it's just he's a bit less unpopular than Sunak. Second, the key election issues - which are also likely to set policy priorities for a new government - are predictable. For many on here, they should note that public transport is pretty much irrelevant as an election issue.

 

[Richard Scott]

But the good thing is whatever he does they are doomed. Think most put the NHS as their number one priority and want their taxes spent on that?

Why? I'd rather the money I pay in was spent wisely not on a load of pen pushing managers.
Some think throwing money at NHS will somehow sort out waiting lists. Afraid it's a big money eater and reality is a lot needs to change before it improves and throwing money at it before this is done is a total waste but, unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be sucked in to the idea that NHS is a sacred cow and must be funded at any cost.

 

[takno]

Why? I'd rather the money I pay in was spent wisely not on a load of pen pushing managers.
Some think throwing money at NHS will somehow sort out waiting lists. Afraid it's a big money eater and reality is a lot needs to change before it improves and throwing money at it before this is done is a total waste but, unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be sucked in to the idea that NHS is a sacred cow and must be funded at any cost.

I think it's probably because they realise that the NHS is capable of sensibly spending a hell of a lot more money than it currently does, and is currently in a state of perpetual crisis, which is causing a lot of people to suffer and die needlessly. Most people don't especially want to suffer and die needlessly, not even for 200 quid off their income tax.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think it's probably because they realise that the NHS is capable of sensibly spending a hell of a lot more money than it currently does, and is currently in a state of perpetual crisis, which is causing a lot of people to suffer and die needlessly. Most people don't especially want to suffer and die needlessly, not even for 200 quid off their income tax.

Agree but, unfortunately, don't think £200 extra tax per person will sort it.
It's always going to need extra money due to technology, as it progresses people expect latest treatment e.g. MRI scans etc but this doesn't come cheap. If have all this something somewhere has to give.
Last Labour government didn't sort this and nor would I have expected them to and, in reality, next one won't either. Again, nor do I expect them to.

 

[The Ham]

Why? I'd rather the money I pay in was spent wisely not on a load of pen pushing managers.
Some think throwing money at NHS will somehow sort out waiting lists. Afraid it's a big money eater and reality is a lot needs to change before it improves and throwing money at it before this is done is a total waste but, unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be sucked in to the idea that NHS is a sacred cow and must be funded at any cost.

Question, would your rather a GP answer the phone to book your appointment or have a security do so? Which would be a better use of money?

Would you rather consultants have to organise their shifts, of have a manager do that for them?

There's research which shows that the NHS has a much lower rate of admin and management than most businesses.

That's not too say that we shouldn't be careful but to get to the point where that isn't the case.

 

[Richard Scott]

Question, would your rather a GP answer the phone to book your appointment or have a security do so? Which would be a better use of money?

Would you rather consultants have to organise their shifts, of have a manager do that for them?

There's research which shows that the NHS has a much lower rate of admin and management than most businesses.

That's not too say that we shouldn't be careful but to get to the point where that isn't the case.

Difference between someone organising a schedule and a manager who achieves very little; doesn't need a manager grade to put a diary together.

 

[The Ham]

Difference between someone organising a schedule and a manager who achieves very little; doesn't need a manager grade to put a diary together.

Indeed it doesn't, however it's still cheaper to have a manager do it than a consultant.

However there's lots which you do want senior staff doing, for example would you want an admin organising who gets surgery first (as it's not as simple as who's be in the list the longest)?

Also, it's worth noting that whilst doctors and other medical staff can be great at their jobs, that doesn't mean that they'll be good at admin tasks. It's better to have someone who's good at that rather than people who aren't but you stop then from doing what they are good at by loading them up with admin tasks.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Question, would your rather a GP answer the phone to book your appointment or have a security do so? Which would be a better use of money?

Actually I'd rather be able to do it online, with a decent website that shows me all the possible timeslots so I have maximum freedom to choose the best time, and no staff involvement is required at all. A fairly simple requirement by the standards of today's website technology, and a couple of private physiotherapy/etc. clinics I use had that kind of thing set up years ago, but for some reason the NHS round here seems completely incapable of that. Instead they have websites that look like they were designed by committee in order to tick boxes, without any sense of what might be useful to patients.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Actually I'd rather be able to do it online, with a decent website that shows me all the possible timeslots so I have maximum freedom to choose the best time, and no staff involvement is required at all. A fairly simple requirement by the standards of today's website technology, and a couple of private physiotherapy/etc. clinics I use had that kind of thing set up years ago, but for some reason the NHS round here seems completely incapable of that. Instead they have websites that look like they were designed by committee in order to tick boxes, without any sense of what might be useful to patients.

These things don't operate by themselves. Someone will need to maintain the software, input the data be there to answer any follow up questions. It may require fewer staff overall but it isn't as simple as you appear to suggest.

 

[birchesgreen]

My GP surgery has all the appointments listed online so when you arrive you can check in using it, though to get an appointment you still have to ring in!

 

[sor]

These things don't operate by themselves. Someone will need to maintain the software, input the data be there to answer any follow up questions. It may require fewer staff overall but it isn't as simple as you appear to suggest.

however there is the inefficiency of there not being a single unified IT system, instead individual trusts / GP groups can go and buy any of a number of approved systems (hmm that sounds VERY familiar doesn't it!)

basically, the government saw the success of gov.uk (which bucked the trend of endless layers of outsourcing in favour of more in house work and a holistic approach to user experience and software engineering) and ignored it

being able to book a GP in advance via the phone is going to be the big step forward though. we don't have to do the 8am phone scrum with our dentists or our pets' vets, so why do doctors insist on it?

 

[baz962]

My GP surgery has all the appointments listed online so when you arrive you can check in using it, though to get an appointment you still have to ring in!

I sometimes wonder if we could do away with appointments. My current GP has appointments and you can wait weeks , although sometimes you can get one on the day if you phone at eight am . My previous GP didn't have appointments , you turned up on the day and were next in the queue and it worked brilliantly and she was an awesome doctor. I never waited more than an hour and the general wait time was 20-40 minutes , only changed doctors as she moved away. Also had very few appointment slots for certain people/conditions. Probably sorted out the no shows too.

 

[Howardh]

I sometimes wonder if we could do away with appointments. My current GP has appointments and you can wait weeks , although sometimes you can get one on the day if you phone at eight am . My previous GP didn't have appointments , you turned up on the day and were next in the queue and it worked brilliantly and she was an awesome doctor. I never waited more than an hour and the general wait time was 20-40 minutes , only changed doctors as she moved away. Also had very few appointment slots for certain people/conditions. Probably sorted out the no shows too.

I like the idea of having an allotted slot so I'm not sat there waiting, being forced to take in other's germs and, infuriatingly, having a TV on in the background; my surgery has a system where you can ring in first thing if it's a real emergency, but to see the doctor for non-urgent stuff can take weeks. I'll be calling, not ringing in (!) tomorrow to book a routine telephone appointment which will no doubt now be in April.

To be fair to them my old mum was in such a state with dementia that she was "priority" so I could ring in any time of day and someone would come out within a few hours, better that than ringing for an ambulance or taking to A+E.

But as alluded to above a system of booking in on-line would be good, however there's no triage to remove those that could be seen by a pharmacist (or indeed severe enough to warrant an ambulance) but on saying that, maybe there is, I once used 111 on-line and ticked boxes as to what was wrong with me, and got a call back with an appointment at the night centre. We appear to have a much better night-care system here than day!

 

[DC1989]

The fact you can't book 'non urgent' GP appointments (in most surgeries) by a simple app is just crazy. So simple to do as well.

5 billion fuel duty cut, just unbelievable. I read so far that's 17 billion worth of upcoming tax increases that the tories have pushed into the next financial year. It's funny when people say a parliament can't bind it's successor.....

 

[edwin_m]

Actually I'd rather be able to do it online, with a decent website that shows me all the possible timeslots so I have maximum freedom to choose the best time, and no staff involvement is required at all. A fairly simple requirement by the standards of today's website technology, and a couple of private physiotherapy/etc. clinics I use had that kind of thing set up years ago, but for some reason the NHS round here seems completely incapable of that. Instead they have websites that look like they were designed by committee in order to tick boxes, without any sense of what might be useful to patients.

The problem here may be that a significant number of potential patients can't access online facilities, either due to not being techno-literate or maybe too ill to manage more than a phone call. Those people, whose need may be greatest, will be shut out if online bookers grab all the appointments.